{"id":2135,"date":"2013-02-04T13:35:52","date_gmt":"2013-02-04T17:35:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/?page_id=2135"},"modified":"2013-04-08T03:31:20","modified_gmt":"2013-04-08T07:31:20","slug":"michelle-van-sleet","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/russia-and-its-empires\/michelle-van-sleet\/","title":{"rendered":"Khrushchev&#8217;s Peaceful Coexistence: The Soviet Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter\" id=\"irc_mi\" src=\"http:\/\/img.timeinc.net\/time\/magazine\/archive\/covers\/1961\/1101610908_400.jpg\" height=\"393\" width=\"298\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">By Michelle Van Sleet<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Introduction.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the  Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev&#8217;s leadership from 1955-1964 is  remembered as a period of &#8220;thaw&#8221; during the Cold War. Khrushchev&#8217;s  foreign policy of pursuing peaceful coexistence with the United States  and its allies was a dramatic change from previous leaders&#8217; attitudes.  In 1956, after Khrushchev had succeeded Joseph Stalin and was beginning  to consolidate power, Khrushchev began a process of &#8220;de-Stalinization&#8221;  to weaken his enemies in the Communist Party and strengthen his position  as leader. Shortly after this, Khrushchev continued to alter Party  policy with his change in approach to foreign policy. This policy of a  peaceful coexistence was meant to improve relations between the Soviet  Union and the United State and had major implications for the preceding  events of the Cold War. Khrushchev&#8217;s policy marks a drastic change in  Soviet policy and it is, therefore, necessary to understand the effects  felt domestically and abroad.<\/p>\n<p>I am analyzing the period from 1956 to 1964. During this time,  Khrushchev implemented his policy of peaceful coexistence, but seemed to  deviate from it during a number of flashpoints in history. My question  is &#8220;to what extent did Khrushchev\u2019s foreign policy for a peaceful  coexistence alter the Soviet people\u2019s perception of Soviet-American  relations?&#8221; There is debate as to the extent to which Khrushchev&#8217;s  foreign policies were the cause of his downfall and eventual cessation  of Soviet leadership&#8211;many argue that his failed domestic policies were  more significant. One of my main sources will be from Khrushchev  himself; it is his article titled, &#8220;On peaceful Coexistence&#8221; that  justifies his policy and explains the reasons for it. Another major  source will be from R\u00f3sa Magn\u00fasd\u00f3ttir&#8217;s article &#8220;&#8216;Be Careful in America,  Premier Khrushchev!\u2019: Soviet Perceptions of Peaceful Coexistence with  the United States in 1959\u201d that analyzes Soviet letters during this time  frame. The letters are written by Soviet civilians addressing  Khrushchev&#8217;s policy. Overall, I will attempt to determine the effect of  Khrushchev&#8217;s peaceful coexistence policy on his role as the leader of  the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Introductory Information.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Khrushchev, Nikita. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"On Peaceful Coexistence\" href=\"\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20029395 (accessed April 1, 2013).\">On peaceful coexistence<\/a>.&#8221; <i>foreign affairs<\/i> 38, no. 1 (1959): 1-18. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20029395 (accessed April 1, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Written by Nikita Khrushchev himself explaining the reasons for  his policy of peaceful coexistence. He argues that from the Lenin-era,  the Soviet Union has always pursued this policy because it is in the  nature of Communism and merely a natural extension of it. In this  article, Khrushchev continually defends the superiority of Communism,  arguing that it will eventually prevail, through peaceful revolution, in  the Capitalist world.\u00a0 Khrushchev promises the further growth and  strengthening of the Soviet economy, seeing it as the only logical  product of a Communist system. Furthermore, Khrushchev cites his  reduction in military and military bases as sufficient proof that his  policy is legitimate and ends by saying, &#8220;peaceful coexistence is the  only way which is in keeping with the interests of all nations.\u201d <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Kennan, George. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"Peaceful Coexistence: A Western View\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20029411\">Peaceful Coexistence: A Western View<\/a>.&#8221; <i>Council on Foreign Relations<\/i> 38, no. 2 (1960): 171-190. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20029411 (accessed April 1, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>This article was written by George Kennan, former U.S.  Ambassador to the Soviet Union. It gives an account of the United  States&#8217; perspective of Khrushchev&#8217;s policy of peaceful coexistence.  Kennan takes a negative and disapproving view, calling Khrushchev&#8217;s  policy a &#8220;distortion&#8221; of history, as he fails to acknowledge the Lenin-  and Stalin-era violence in the Soviet Union. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Primary Sources.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Magn\u00fasd\u00f3ttir, R\u00f3sa. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"&quot;Be Careful in America, Premier Khrushchev!&quot;: Sovuet Perceptions of Peaceful Coexistence with the United States in 1959\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20174992\">&#8220;Be Careful in America, Premier Khrushchev!&#8221;:  Soviet Perceptions of Peaceful Coexistence with the United States in  1959<\/a>.&#8221; <i>EHESS<\/i> 47, no. 1\/2 (2006): 109-130. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20174992 (accessed April 2, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>In her article, R\u00f3sa Magn\u00fasd\u00f3ttir analyzes a collection of  letters from the Soviet public regarding their opinions about  Khrushchev&#8217;s new policy of peaceful coexistence. The letters were  written just after Khrushchev&#8217;s visit to the United States, which the  Soviet citizens generally viewed very positively. First, Magn\u00fasd\u00f3ttir  explains the nature of peaceful coexistence and its goals. Then, she  describes how the letters&#8217; writers typically highlight Communism&#8217;s  superiority over Capitalism, but evoke an admiration for the American  way of life. The Soviet authors seem to believe that their country&#8217;s  intentions are misunderstood and that, in fact, Khrushchev is correct in  claiming it is the nature of Communism to pursue peaceful coexistence.  Overall, however, Magn\u00fasd\u00f3ttir argues that there is an overwhelming  sense of &#8220;self-censorship&#8221; that goes on in the letters, which makes them  severely susceptible to bias. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Wedgwood Benn , David. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review Article Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by William Taubman\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4147389\">On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review  Article Khrushchev: The Man and His Era by William Taubma<\/a>n.&#8221; <i>Europe-Asia Studies<\/i> 56, no. 4 (2004): 615-621. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4147389 (accessed April 5, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>This article briefly discusses the notion that although  remembered fondly by many non-communists now, Khruschev was horribly  unpopular during his time in power. Wedgewood Benn attributes this  mass-disapproval to Khrushchev&#8217;s involvement in the Berlin Crisis of  1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both events were seen as being  shameful for the Soviet Union. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Du Quenoy, Paul. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/40109322\">The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964<\/a>.&#8221; <i>The International History Review<\/i> 25, no. 2 (2003): 334-356. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/40109322 (accessed April 1, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>In his article, Paul De Quenoy argues that Khrushchev\u2019s foreign  policy was a significant factor that led to his downfall in 1964. He  notes the hypocrisy of Khrushchev&#8217;s policy; despite his calls for peace,  Khrushchev did not substantially reduce the amount of nuclear weapons  the Soviet Union possessed. Similarly to Wedgewood Benn, De Quenoy  points to the Berlin Crisis and Cuban Missile Crisis as points of  contention between the Soviet people and the Communist party. Overall,  he suggests the frequent flashpoints during Khrushchev&#8217;s reign that  should be attributed towards his downfall. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Print Sources. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Service, Robert. <i>A History of Modern Russia: From Tsarism to the Twenty-First Century<\/i>. Third Edition ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>The 17th and 18th Chapters of Service&#8217;s book is focused on the  Khrushchev-era in the Soviet Union. He notes that Khrushchev\u2019s claim of  Lenin&#8217;s will to follow a peaceful coexistence\u00a0 in the beginning phase of  Communism is not quite accurate. Instead, Service argues, \u201cLenin had  mentioned such an idea only glancingly. Furthermore, Service claims that  Khrushchev \u201cno longer faced serious domestic challenge\u201d to his policy  of peaceful coexistence, but instead offers other domestic conditions,  such as politics, economics, and culture, for being the cause of his  downfall. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Kocho-Williams, Alastair. <i>Russia&#8217;s International Relations in the Twentieth Century<\/i>. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis, 2013.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>In his book, Kocho-Williams focuses on the Khrushchev-era in  Chapter 8. He argues that Khrushchev&#8217;s policy of peaceful coexistence  would be better defined as a policy of\u00a0 &#8220;enforced coexistence&#8221; rather  than seeking to ease tensions. Again, Kocho-Williams cites the Berlin  Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis as being major failures in  Khrushchev&#8217;s policies. He argues that the series of embarrassments in  the 1950s and 1960s were the main reasons why Khrushchev was ousted in  1964. Kocho-Williams highlights Khrushchev&#8217;s trip to the United States  as a positive time in public opinion, but pinpoints the &#8216;Shoe Banging&#8217;  incident as the damning negative shift.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Media and Background Sources.<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cKhrushchev and Peaceful Coexistence\u201d by John D. Clare<\/p>\n<p>\ufeff<img loading=\"lazy\" id=\"irc_mi\" src=\"http:\/\/www.johndclare.net\/images\/khruschevice.gif\" height=\"393\" width=\"336\" \/><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Depicted is a cartoon of Khrushchev destroying a snow man, which  represents the Cold War. A smiling, large and strong Khrushchev bravely  begins to melt the snowman, putting an end to the Cold War. This is how  the Soviet public viewed Khrushchev&#8217;s policy of peaceful coexistence in  the beginning of his leadership; they viewed his efforts positively and  were optimistic about the outcome. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=-F_V2fQCKe4\">Khrushchev Threatens Hammarskj\u00f6ld &amp; UN 1960\/10\/3 <\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>This is a video of Khrushchev&#8217;s &#8216;Shoe Banging&#8217; incident at the  UN in 1960 (starts at 4:45). This incident brought a lot of shame to the  Soviet people, who felt their leader made a fool of himself on the  world stage. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Khrushchev, Sergei. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"Soviet Perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis from Nikita Khrushchev\u2019s Son\" href=\"http:\/\/news.usni.org\/2012\/10\/24\/soviet-perspective-cuban-missile-crisis-nikita-khrushchevs-son\">Soviet Perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis from Nikita Khrushchev\u2019s Son<\/a>.&#8221; <i>United States Naval Institution<\/i>, October 24, 2012.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>This is an interview with Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita Khruschev&#8217;s  son, about the Soviet perspective during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In  the interview, Sergei defends his father\u2019s actions and further\u00a0 promotes  peaceful negotiations. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Brusilovskaia, Lidiia. 2009. &#8220;<a target=\"_blank\" title=\"The Culture of Everyday Life During the Thaw\" href=\"http:\/\/search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu\/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=aph&amp;AN=43090487&amp;site=ehost-live&amp;scope=site\">The Culture of Everyday Life During the Thaw<\/a>.&#8221; <i>Russian Studies In History<\/i> 48, no. 1: 10-32. <i>Academic Search Premier<\/i>, EBSCO<i>host<\/i> (accessed April 8, 2013).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>In her article,\u00a0 Brusilovskaia compares and contrasts the\u00a0  Soviet Union&#8217;s culture under Joseph Stalin, who led from 1922-1953, and  Khrushchev.\u00a0 She also discusses the cult of personality period found  under Stalin, which Khrushchev famously criticized in his Secret Speech  in 1956.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Michelle Van Sleet Introduction. In the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev&#8217;s leadership from 1955-1964 is remembered as a period of &#8220;thaw&#8221; during the Cold War. Khrushchev&#8217;s foreign policy of pursuing peaceful coexistence with the United States and its allies was a dramatic change from previous leaders&#8217; attitudes. In 1956, after Khrushchev had succeeded Joseph Stalin [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1144,"featured_media":0,"parent":2090,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2135"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1144"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2135"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2853,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2135\/revisions\/2853"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bu.edu\/guidedhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}